[Tanada]

Very interesting report at link with lots of graphs to back up each portion. Highly recommended for reading and discussion.

Report

[C8]

Basically it says that the transition to renewable energy dominance will be swift.

I gotta say I disagree with everything they wrote and it reads like happy talk.

[theluckycountry]

Yes it's the ramblings of men who have never stepped outside of Academia long enough to see how the world works.

The endgame is here. In one country and region after another, demand for fossil fuels is facing inevitable decline. They got that right.

The concept of "New surging technology" is certainly true, but only with an abundant energy source to drive it. Hundreds of thousands of slaves to build pyramids, Mountains of coal to fuel the early industrial revolution. Oceans of oil to cover the world in concrete highways and fill them with cars.

The authors make the same mistake all other such reports make. They ignore or dismiss EROEI. Yes you could conceivably transition the worlds electricity grid to re-buildable solar and wind, using the last of the fossil fuel reserves on the planet. But what do you do in 20 years time when all the windmills and solar panels become unserviceable? The whole concept is a fairytail where you have to suspend logical thinking and believe that "They will find a way".

[AdamB]

Very interesting report at link with lots of graphs to back up each portion. Highly recommended for reading and discussion.

Report

Nice reference. Knows that peaks have come and gone before, and there it is,, Tony Seba's S-curve, Figure 1. That alone gives this piece some credibility.

An interesting quirk is that it seems to be a demand centric explanation as well. Unfortunate to some extent, in that it reverses the peak oil myopia, and without a consideration of both, either can be hoodwinked from the opposing angle.

Nice to notice that other folks understand the ongoing peak, peak again, and peak some more that the McPeaksters can't wrap their minds around, even with, what is the score now, 7 in just this century?

[AdamB]

Basically it says that the transition to renewable energy dominance will be swift.

It says that Happy McPeaksters could have figured it out after the 1979 global peak oil when demand was driving the show but couldn't be bothered, and these folks explained it all from the demand side when McPeaksetrs haven't even figured it out yet.

[Plantagenet]

Very interesting report at link with lots of graphs to back up each portion. Highly recommended for reading and discussion.

Report

Thanks....thats a very very interesting report.....and authored by the Rocky Mountain Institute......thats the old Amory Lovins think tank.

If there ever was a brilliant guy who was years ahead of his time in predicting the transition to renewables it was Amory Lovins.



And I really like the way the RMI report dealt with the concept of peak oil.......the report discussed various types of "peaks", including the concept that there can be multiple "peaks" during a long plateau near the peak of global oil production ----and that is exactly the same idea as the classic peak oil idea of a "bumpy plateau" in peak oil. So the RMI and the peak oil community are pretty much in agreement on the idea of a "bumpy plateau" marking the peak in global oil production.

Which brings us to the RMI predictions about the future. RMI theorizes that we will see a rapid global transition to renewables in the near future. Their model seem to be based on the way that new technologies are rapidly adopted in the high tech world, completely replacing old technologies every few years.

I certainly hope the RMI theory is correct......I would love to see a future world where fossil fuels are no longer used and the world is powered by clean, safe, non-polluting carbon-free renewable energy.

However.....I have my doubts that global energy systems will transition as rapidly as RMI suggests.....especially since Amory Lovins.....the founder and intellectual inspiration for RMI..... made the same prediction back in the mid 1970s.....and thats almost 50 years ago now.

Cheers!

[C8]

I would add that I wish this transition could happen as explained in peaking. I have no inherent love for any system of energy production over another and it is clear that fossil fuels will be depleted mainly by 2100 if not 2050.

But a successful transition will require using 80% less energy, not a different type of energy. Renewable energy will never come close to matching what FF's could produce on a sustainable basis (as renewable systems wear out and need constant replacement).

This reality will not need to be accepted- it will be forced on people over time.

[AdamB]

But a successful transition will require using 80% less energy, not a different type of energy. Renewable energy will never come close to matching what FF's could produce on a sustainable basis (as renewable systems wear out and need constant replacement).

Good things nukes aren't renewable systems then, and we only have enough fuel for those for millennium. Intellectual blindness to set up a false dichotomy is a tell C8.

[jedrider]

Peak Oil was in 2019 I think. Is this wrong?

[AdamB]

Peak Oil was in 2019 I think. Is this wrong?

The current carved into stone peak oil was 2018 (an unpredicted one I believe, but the current known via data), the peak oil barrel folks called it to the month late in the year I think. Plant recently dropped a reference than says it is happening now, 2022. In either case, 2018 was #6 of the century, and if Plant's source isn't discredited the way Plant's lifetime greenhouse emissions of EVs information is, this would be Lucky #7. Vegas currently taking bets on if there is a Lucky #8 out there, or can we finally end the drama and just begin adapting to it. Like...we did....all the others.....

[Doly]

This is the sort of report that irritates me: written from a market-based approach. The problem with any market-based approach is that it begins by taking for granted that markets will exist and function reasonably well. These guys talk about the "expert's curse" and then can't see outside their own box.

The problem with supposing that demand for alternative energies will grow rapidly once you reach the peak in fossil fuels assumes that there will be no significant energy shortage issues during the peak (how come?), and that those energy shortage issues aren't going to affect those markets that supposedly can change so fast and smoothly.

My own model isn't market-based, and it pointed at difficulties in the energy transition, precisely because it's just hard to change a whole bunch of industrial infrastructure when energy itself is an issue.

[AdamB]

This is the sort of report that irritates me: written from a market-based approach.

You aren't alone, it irritates me when people do it only from the supply side.

The problem with any market-based approach is that it begins by taking for granted that markets will exist and function reasonably well. These guys talk about the "expert's curse" and then can't see outside their own box.

Yup. And Colin Campbell might be hell on wheel on the thermogenic window and events (timing, trap and charge) of oil and gas generation (excluding shale sourced/reservoired rock of course), but doesn't know bubcuss about the engineering and technology necessary to make assumptions of obtainable volumes. Just slap some curves to data, like this report does on the demand side, and declare the end of the world. I see it with PhDs all the time, because they are permanent students of, say, accounting, suddenly they figure it translates into engine design for Formula One cars.

The problem with supposing that demand for alternative energies will grow rapidly once you reach the peak in fossil fuels assumes that there will be no significant energy shortage issues during the peak (how come?), and that those energy shortage issues aren't going to affect those markets that supposedly can change so fast and smoothly.

And the problem with peaker geologists supposing they know anything about producible volumes because they can analyze a core or outcrop and write a paper on the vitronite reflectance of the organic matter to determine its age is about the same. Or, you pretend that SEC Rule 156 doesn't apply to you, and so you fit random curves because you can't fit the right ones, and what do financial specialists know that can needs to be learned by modelers?

My own model isn't market-based, and it pointed at difficulties in the energy transition, precisely because it's just hard to change a whole bunch of industrial infrastructure when energy itself is an issue.

And your model knows what part of the necessary information to handle 2/3's of the world's non-renewable resource, you know, the capital and operating cost requirements of global oil and gas resources, volumes, locations, taxes and subsidies, and cartel behavior necessary to figure out the demand/supply/price relationships of crude oil and natural gas in the future?

[Tanada]

I am happy to see the report sparking such open debate in its merits or faults as the individual member of our PO fraternity see it playing out.

For myself as one of the original members of the moderate effect of PO wing on this website from way back in April 2005 here is my take.

I do not currently believe that the intermittent renewables like Wind and Solar can expand themselves based strictly on the energy they provide absent fossil fuel support for everything from mining the iron ore needed to construction and wiring them into the grid with ample batter resources to cover the periods when they are not producing.

That being said I also never believed that when PO happens the economy will shatter like a hot glass pitcher filled with ice cold beer. Especially not while we have abundant supplies of both Natural Gas and Coal available to keep the economy operating at a high level.

All the chatter about climate change that goes on hasn't changed the basic fact that humans are right now today still expanding our use of all three types of fossil fuels, gasses, liquids and yes solids.

Presumably PO will bring a stop to easily expanding use of fossil liquid fuels, but we have known for a century now how to convert coal into diesel fuel and how to convert natural gas into gasoline/kerosene those three liquids being the primary forms of liquid fuels our civilization, so called, consumes.

On top of that if the Ukraine conflict and the shortage of Russian natural gas exports has proven anything it is this, voters demand their government do not let them die of heat waves or freeze in winter conditions. Germany the so called environmental green energy leader of the EU has reactivated at least two and possibly three coal burning power stations as of July 18th. What is even more telling is despite the screams of the anti-nuclear green party which is part of the ruling coalition they are seriously considering keeping the three remaining nuclear power stations active for another two years and reactivating two of the three they closed last year to make up for the shortfall of natural gas and renewable unreliability.

Voters get rather testy when politicians spend two decades promising the green energy revolution and after hundreds of billions of euros being invested they find they are paying 600% of the 2002 electricity price and have made themselves dependent on cheap Russian natural gas. Because they were not prepared to import LNG form the world market and even worse the world market was not able to supply all they wanted even at a substantial price premium. Also the intermittent renewables have failed to live up to the hype, badly.

[AdamB]

That being said I also never believed that when PO happens the economy will shatter like a hot glass pitcher filled with ice cold beer.

Which one? The first 5 happened or claimed in this century, or the current one in 2018 that 4 years on was so earth shattering that no one noticed? Or the next one?

Presumably PO will bring a stop to easily expanding use of fossil liquid fuels, but we have known for a century now how to convert coal into diesel fuel and how to convert natural gas into gasoline/kerosene those three liquids being the primary forms of liquid fuels our civilization, so called, consumes.

Presumably? Sure...from a theoretical perspective. Presumably, a peak oil will finally cause an actual peak oil that isn't later reversed. Do you have a timeframe on these consequences playing out, post peak? A year later? 5? 10? Because there was no evidence for 15 years after the 1979 global peak that the world decided to go sideways, instead, we used less. Not an economic shattering in sight, but certainly a recovering one, coming out of 1979.

Voters get rather testy when politicians spend two decades promising the green energy revolution and after hundreds of billions of euros being invested they find they are paying 600% of the 2002 electricity price and have made themselves dependent on cheap Russian natural gas. Because they were not prepared to import LNG form the world market and even worse the world market was not able to supply all they wanted even at a substantial price premium. Also the intermittent renewables have failed to live up to the hype, badly.

Indeed. And all this being reasonable, what level of price or hysteria, or outright inconvenience, do you think it'll take for a full blown nuclear buildout to happen in order to keep the citizen hordes from hanging their leaders in the streets? Sure, it'll cost. Is costing the Europeans right now. Cry me a river for their poor judgement on energy issues when England alone sits on an estimated 800+ TCF of shale gas that they won't develope. But you and I don't live in Europe. Think Americans will go into full bore riot/hang them from the state capital rotunda when good ol' boys can't afford their rolling coal monster trucks, or the NG to heat their homes, water or food?

[theluckycountry]

I do not currently believe that the intermittent renewables like Wind and Solar can expand themselves based strictly on the energy they provide absent fossil fuel support...

That being said I also never believed that when PO happens the economy will shatter like a hot glass pitcher filled with ice cold beer. Especially not while we have abundant supplies of both Natural Gas and Coal available to keep the economy operating at a high level...

A well balanced outlook Tanada, and one I agree with. The biggest limiting factor as to how we handle the next 50 years is not the energy equations I believe so much as the political responses to them. Politicians have a knack for taking a simple problem and creating a mammoth bureaucracy to solve it, that in the end screws everything to hell and gone and leaves us with a myriad of unintended consequences.

I cite thinks like the subsidies/rebates for EV's, yes they have allowed many more people to enter the market but I also believe they have encouraged the manufacturers to design overpriced over-powered vehicles when they should instead be focusing on the bread and butter commuter cars that make up the bulk of ICE vehicles on the road.

[AdamB]

I do not currently believe that the intermittent renewables like Wind and Solar can expand themselves based strictly on the energy they provide absent fossil fuel support...

That being said I also never believed that when PO happens the economy will shatter like a hot glass pitcher filled with ice cold beer. Especially not while we have abundant supplies of both Natural Gas and Coal available to keep the economy operating at a high level...

A well balanced outlook Tanada, and one I agree with.

Yes, the Chinese love their sycophants, we know, you don't have to make it so obvious to the Free World denizens. And if that is all you are capable of, fine, but I'll bet you, with half your countrymen helping, would have a tough time answering some of the simple disparities I pointed out that are contained within Tanada's future cast. You don't have a chance of course, having probably needed to look up the word "disparities", but I'm sure among the millions of Chinese laborers on your island someone there got a mining colony equivalent of a high school education and can help you out.

[theluckycountry]

But a successful transition will require using 80% less energy, not a different type of energy. Renewable energy will never come close to matching what FF's could produce on a sustainable basis (as renewable systems wear out and need constant replacement).

This reality will not need to be accepted- it will be forced on people over time.

Forced yes, and many who can't afford it will be forced to switch the lights off, as is already happening all over the nation for people who can't afford their bills now.

Another thing I realized was totally missed in the report was that during and after all those earlier transitions the economies employing them got richer and richer, standards of living went up and up.

Now this renebuildable solar and wind tech isn't new, it has been around since the 1960's! Fifty years of experimentation and innovation and lets say 10 years of rapid deployment since 2010, and what have we seen in the past 10 years, fabulous economic growth and the expansion of wealth across society? No, the exact opposite. Renewables make life more expensive, not cheaper like the the previous transitions. EV's are as dear as poison, renewable electricity doubles energy bills, it's a total farce to say this transition is anything other than a last gasp effort to milk capital from the dying oil fields.

This energy isn't renewable, that's the first lie. It's conversion technology. The energy of coal is in the coal, the energy of oil is in the oil molecules. The energy of a solar panel is in the sun, of a windmill it's in the wind. Some may think this is hair splitting but it's central to the whole problem. We have seen this before because it's fundamentally "old" technology. It's leveraging, the Egyptians employed it using water wheels, leveraging the energy of moving water. And that's where it will take us, back to the days when hundreds of people slaved around a waterwheel as it slowly raised stone blocks out of the Nile. But this time with a little more finesse, a little more glamor.

[jawagord]

Basically it says that the transition to renewable energy dominance will be swift.

I gotta say I disagree with everything they wrote and it reads like happy talk.

The mistake these reports all make is to assume the rest of the world is the same Economically and Politically as Europe/USA. The energy transitions fantasies that rich countries can indulge in by borrowing huge sums of money to subsidize unreliable wind and solar are not available to poor countries. And eventually even the rich countries will run out of borrowed money and turn back to fossil fuels.

The IEA’s annual report on coal forecasts global coal use is set to rise by 1.2% this year, exceeding 8 billion tonnes in a single year for the first time and a previous record set in 2013.

It also predicts that coal consumption will remain flat at that level to 2025 as falls in mature markets are offset by continued strong demand in emerging Asian economies.

https://energynow.ca/2022/12/global-coa ... -year-iea/

[AdamB]

Very interesting report at link with lots of graphs to back up each portion. Highly recommended for reading and discussion.

Report

Amory Lovins' gang, if memory serves. He seemed very interested in leveraging peak oil (the ones pre-2010, not the later ones) to the advantage of his analysis of renewables. I don't recall his specific angle back then, and I've often thought I should set up a meeting just to see how they interact with folks, rather than just publishing reports.

[theluckycountry]

The mistake these reports all make is to assume the rest of the world is the same Economically and Politically as Europe/USA. The energy transitions fantasies that rich countries can indulge in by borrowing huge sums of money to subsidize unreliable wind and solar are not available to poor countries.

Very true very true. makes you wonder what those Billions think when they see the twaddle on TV. Even in villages of the third world there are lots of TVs, but huts and shanties covered in solar panels?